Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4326D11E814D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBE4OCCqPgHc for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a65.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC2711E8149 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a65.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a65.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0947E406F for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=QRUZM0hT0Cc1ywk3MAic 2D6b5aA=; b=UpWs09z2DLMTRH0E52Gf9TSyxggFT4d4/ULdCxOtpsOCu5/8re4A zUnWG+DUL5Hgg9T0RnqDNDrVS9Ty7symTrNna2tnWEBQZ3Fywx3gEXNHZztYF8JJ 7imcYIMeWPPNV92vBf6UYDFFfZ21iL6eh6SkcVQk8eEKIimPYnMkaCQ=
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a65.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA0817E4065 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p60so4779701wes.41 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6+Z1r8tCmlQCzrKMtuUHDlYh7n9+cok5aRKvlcdBR1E=; b=LL1WA71FyHhSZija2S05I1pHPL81DcD4MgublO7209EsTC8TFc1yt1ygRtM2S6UAsj lyWsaO6xPY7E9WTLhNkaxli4VWhi4VYzKcK93vPFkTB6f68FdC23zz6OCingwJEV46EH COBnUOy1r5PxuLuVzm5t2hLryfpXZqVKlXCzIqYo3LQHC6TV+ildIZJZCaUm36exBvSm ebMLr/PQv4A6DrpjhYg41aVasTamnT+v+vbm/r8XMw2qSV/j7eY/R5mcClldBJ+oL37O t5D61lc8neMkk89KnsH/chKI1H7clO2CgdJmquZ8YBvN+a3O7edfhnaU1aB4YcHdGpgS saTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.77.74 with SMTP id q10mr16839760wiw.28.1372822246244; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.152.73 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B86E1D4B-1DC8-4AD6-B8B3-E989599E0537@vpnc.org>
References: <B86E1D4B-1DC8-4AD6-B8B3-E989599E0537@vpnc.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:30:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOj3MNNhjwo2bMa5CgoqynzMRVvviBXC8szxt5D17Z7FDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "json@ietf.org WG" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 03:30:53 -0000

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> <chair hats on>
>
> Do either or both of these proposals work for people in the WG?

No way.  The threads on this were long, I know, but it should be clear
that streaming parsers cannot even detect that there are duplicates,
much less do something about them.

In short, for streaming parsers (and generators) there's nothing we can do.

What we can do is RECOMMEND that a) generators not produce duplicates
(and explain how streaming ones cannot prevent dups), and b) that
parsers use the last name (and explain how streaming ones will produce
all dups).  (We might as well point out that some parsers produce the
first name, but I don't mind saying those are on the wrong side of
this SHOULD.)

Nico
--